Nobody had privacy living in a small tribe or village.
Yes; that's one reason we have an advanced civilization and they had a primitive one.
What we do need is reciprocal transparency - we need to know what corporations, governments, and the Men In Black are up to.
Sure, and I need a warp-speed runabout that fits in a parking space, a couple of babes Jello-wrestling for my affections, and the missing lines of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan". That doesn't mean that I base my plans around the expectation of getting them.
Get out there and videotape someone important.
Enjoy the resulting harassment, problems at work, tax audits, etc. resulting from the inevitable government abuse of the information-gathering capabilities you endorse.
And for a more interesting view on privacy, check out David Brin's The Transparent Society - worth a million Katz articles.
Only if you're one of the many on Slashdot (not quite including myself) who considers Katz articles to be worthless if not downright detrimental.
As was pointed out at great length and detail in previous/. threads, Brin displayed profound clue deprivation concerning counter-surveillance tech and the unwillingness of governments to abide by the laws they make for the rest of us. /.
As much as I hate the US Gov't, you have to know that this is an Urban Legend. Absoloutely false. Its been circulating in various forms for years.
On the contrary, it understates the case. For instance, if you recall the House Bank scandal about ten years back you'll realize that the number of bad-check writers is in the triple rather than double digits. /.
Course, here in Canada, we have Hate Crime Legislation - you can be charged for spreading literature, or other propaganda that targets a race or group.
Which is, of course, never applied against the targeting of groups in the government's disfavor. /.
Mapping where someone's Cell Phone can and does save lives. People stuck in mountains, snow, and other places where the owners of the phone don't know where they are.
Sure, and if I were to go into the mountains, snow, and other places (which I won't -- nasty, uncomforable things that make you late for dinner...) I'll authorize (Hey, cool, a duck just dropped from the ceiling with a $100 bill in its beak!) tracking. Not otherwise. /.
I heard an excellent argument against Internet voting on NPR yesterday. Because Internet voting makes it easier to vote, more people will probably vote. Because Internet users are generally wealthier, this means an even more disproportionate number of wealthy people will have a larger share of the vote. So it's kind of undemocratic to make voting easier for some people than others.
This isn't a very convincing argument -- after all, the current voting arrangements make it considerably easier for non-workers than for regular 9-5 types. (Somehow, I doubt that NPR spent any time complaining about that....)
The really strong arguments against Internet voting are:
Privacy: How do you prevent people from watching over the voter's shoulder? Political machines could even arrange parties with goodies and Net terminals -- perhaps it would be illegal to tell you how to vote, but there would be obvious pressures.
Security: Other messages here have commented on this problem.
Public Confidence: This is related to the previous issue. As long as the Internet has security holes, people are going to wonder about a Votescam scenario every time an election "upset" occurs.
Civic Engagement: Let's face it, the chance that your vote will decide any election above the dog-catcher level is about equal to your chances of winning the lottery. The excersize is more symoblic than substantive, and clicking a mouse just doesn't cut it for most people.
Voter Standards: If people aren't sufficiently interested to physically visit the polls (or send in the form for a mail-in ballot if they cannot do so), they probably aren't sufficiently interested to educate themselves on the issues. /.
Democracy is about trusting the judgement of the masses more than you`ll trust the judgement of any individual.
That is precisely why the founders of the American Republic specifically and emphatically rejected the notion of "democracy". They had a clear-headed understanding of the level of "judgment" to be expected from the masses on any emotionally-charged issue. /.
Deliberate attempts to destroy a business are illegal. @Home should sue any site that refuses to carry its traffic (at least those subject to US courts).
You've been taken in by spammer FUD and BS. Net sites are the private property of their respective owner, free to reject traffic according to their own rules (though they may be liable if they selectively enforce the rules in a prejudicial manner).
Especially go after the smaller sites. They'll BUCKLE under the legal pressure as their bosses realize that they cannot afford a long expen$$$ive lawsuit.
@Home presumably hires reputable and competent lawyers, who do not wish to besmirch their recordss with frivolous-lawsuit sanctions. Their spammer customers are welcome to file such lawsuits, if any of them can find an attorney willing to accept chick en bones as a form of currency. /.
That perhaps people are fearful of the government (All of Slashdot Except Me), but perhaps they have more to fear from some guy who steals their credit card number.
They've capped my tax/fee/fine liability at a level lower than the $50 credit-card liability cap? Great!!
Or a company that aggregates legally available information that, when brought together, violates privacy
You mean like the Census Long Form? (Oops, that's not a company. Never mind....)
Generally, unless you're kevin mitnick, you have more to fear from criminals and unethical people than from the government.
One cannot draw a firm distinction between groups which overlap so extensively. /.
First, it's incoherent: how can "physical or mental prowess" not be an example of "objective, individual merit"?
Second, it relies upon undefined terms: if you think "harassment" is a well-defined concept then you haven't been paying attention to the state of sexual-harassment law.
Third, it is an affront to freedom of association: by your definition, a desire to separate oneself from bores and louts (which I certainly regard as inferior, but which cannot be defined in objective terms) is "hate speech".
Fourth, exactly how does one engage in "harassment" against "places", "things", or "concepts"? /.
And finally, my favorite... if anyone is willing to explain to me what is meant by this, please do so:
It is perhaps not Big Brother we should be worried about, but big browser," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "We need to be fearful that the aggregation of information, if it is misused, is very terrifying."
Newspeak-to-English Translation: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain wiping his ass with the Constitution." /.
Quite frankly, I don't see why there is even the need for the NRA.
If you don't want all personal liberties to be ultimately destroyed by divide-and-conquer attack, you should not give aid and comfort to the dividers and conquerors. /.
One of the major concerns that free-speech advocates have about censorware is that its blacklists, or blocking lists, are hidden.
If I buy a bottle of powder that says it will kill my cat's fleas, and it does -- and makes her hair fall out -- I'd sue the crooks who sold it. I'd win, too, provided that I presented convincing evidence that 1)the powder was indeed the cause of the feline defoliation and 2)that this side effect had not been disclosed.
Why don't the same laws apply if you buy a box that says it contains software that will block pornsites, and it does -- and blocks politically-incorrect sites? /.
Under that rule, all porn sites (the definition would have to be decided upon, of course) must go into this TLD.
There is a classic Sidney Harris cartoon showing a blackboard with one set of equations on the left, a different set on the right, and in between is written: "THEN, A MIRACLE HAPPENS".
Sorry, but you'll have to show your work, with proof that the definition is immune to politically-based targeting by government.
Of course, this does nothing for the other big problem in the Net (hate speech) but a similar plan could be used.
The "hate speech" label is routinely used as a political club. No, I'm afraid that your plan simply can't work (at least, not for your stated goals; it would work just fine as a tool for the government to ghettoize the opposition). /.
If you're religious, the ultimate judge of all people is God. Whatever He says, goes. So, you pick up the Bible,
Belief in the Bible != Being religious. Your comments here are grossly disrespectful to billions of people.
you see clearly stated in numerous places throuought the Bible that sexual promiscuity is against the will of the Almighty
Even if we set aside the previous point and concentrate on the Bible, we find it to be rather inconsistent on this issue; I can't seem to find the passage which condemns Solomon for having seven hundred wives and three hundred porcupines.
My specific religion states that sexual promiscuity is a crime above that even of murder.
I'll refrain from stating an opinion on this relative valuation, and simply note that it would be lunacy to base civil law on a standard that would release a murderer onto the streets to free a prison cell for an adulterer.
Your biggest fears may be the possibility of government officials poking their nose where it doesn't belong.
Damn straight. If you think that there is something to be feared more, then show me the evidence that your allegedly more fearsome force has racked up a higher death toll over the past century than out-of-control governments. (Hint: You'll need to reach nine-digit territory.)
you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away your rights
Precisely. To permit rights to be taken away is to acquiesce to the triumph of evil -- which many religious people consider to be, quite literally, grounds for damnation.
The vast majority of sex offenders, murderers, etc are known to have frequented pornagraphy.
Has education really degenerated to the point that people don't recognize the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy?
Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
Free speech requires only that everyone is free to speak; it does not require anyone else to listen. The fact that the flat-earth side of the geophysical debate goes unheard simply means that they've lost the argument, not that their free speech rights have somehow been infringed. /.
Well John, it seems to me that society has figured this out, but that you refuse to recognize that fact because it's opinion differs from yours.
"Society" is incapable of figuring out anything or forming an opinion, insamuch as reason in an attribute of individual sapient beings.
Yes, it makes for a convenient shorthand (for "enough people agree with me to shout down the people who agree with you"), but when shorthand expressions facilitate logical fallacies they need to be expanded out for analysis.
It should be illegal to distribute pictures of sexual activities that are illegal. Simple.
The equation of the image with the reality is called "voo-doo" and scorned as superstition when practiced by impoverished and uneducated (by force of circumstances) Haitians. I see no reason why it should be accorded any more respect when practiced by wealthy and uneducated (by choice) Americans.
The first amendment protects speech, not porn. The writers wanted to protect the right of the citizens to speak against the government. Simple. They very easily could have said "freedom of expression," but they did not.
Now, now, now; when you try to have it both ways it's traditional to at least pretend to respect the intelligence of your readers by inserting at least three paragraphs of padding between the mutually exclusive statements.
Either one may infer an intent not explicitly stated, or one may not. Your option (One may infer an intent I like, but not one I dislike) is not on the menu. /.
yeah, the constitution says all rights not given to the fed. gov. go to states. but the constitution was made to be a document which can evolve.
Quote the text of the relevant Constitutional amendment (the one and only mechanism by whcih the Constitution may "evolve"), or admit that you're blowing smoke. /.
It is not hard to imagine Fortune 1000 companies offering generous telecommuting plans in order to encourage employees to work at home, and thereby excusing themselves from any responsibility for their safety. Then, if you wind up with an RSI due to poor working conditions at home, the company takes no blame despite having pushed you into that situation.
You know, when people do this with physical goods rather than words, it's called "bait and switch", and it's (quite legitimately) illegal. /.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes; that's one reason we have an advanced civilization and they had a primitive one.
What we do need is reciprocal transparency - we need to know what corporations, governments, and the Men In Black are up to.
Sure, and I need a warp-speed runabout that fits in a parking space, a couple of babes Jello-wrestling for my affections, and the missing lines of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan". That doesn't mean that I base my plans around the expectation of getting them.
Get out there and videotape someone important.
Enjoy the resulting harassment, problems at work, tax audits, etc. resulting from the inevitable government abuse of the information-gathering capabilities you endorse.
And for a more interesting view on privacy, check out David Brin's The Transparent Society - worth a million Katz articles.
Only if you're one of the many on Slashdot (not quite including myself) who considers Katz articles to be worthless if not downright detrimental.
As was pointed out at great length and detail in previous /. threads, Brin displayed profound clue deprivation concerning counter-surveillance tech and the unwillingness of governments to abide by the laws they make for the rest of us.
/.
Wrong.
/.
On the contrary, it understates the case. For instance, if you recall the House Bank scandal about ten years back you'll realize that the number of bad-check writers is in the triple rather than double digits.
/.
Which is, of course, never applied against the targeting of groups in the government's disfavor.
/.
Newspeak-to-English Translation: You have the right to do anything of which we approve.
/.
Sure, and if I were to go into the mountains, snow, and other places (which I won't -- nasty, uncomforable things that make you late for dinner...) I'll authorize (Hey, cool, a duck just dropped from the ceiling with a $100 bill in its beak!) tracking. Not otherwise.
/.
This isn't a very convincing argument -- after all, the current voting arrangements make it considerably easier for non-workers than for regular 9-5 types. (Somehow, I doubt that NPR spent any time complaining about that....)
The really strong arguments against Internet voting are:
Privacy: How do you prevent people from watching over the voter's shoulder? Political machines could even arrange parties with goodies and Net terminals -- perhaps it would be illegal to tell you how to vote, but there would be obvious pressures.
Security: Other messages here have commented on this problem.
Public Confidence: This is related to the previous issue. As long as the Internet has security holes, people are going to wonder about a Votescam scenario every time an election "upset" occurs.
Civic Engagement: Let's face it, the chance that your vote will decide any election above the dog-catcher level is about equal to your chances of winning the lottery. The excersize is more symoblic than substantive, and clicking a mouse just doesn't cut it for most people.
Voter Standards: If people aren't sufficiently interested to physically visit the polls (or send in the form for a mail-in ballot if they cannot do so), they probably aren't sufficiently interested to educate themselves on the issues.
/.
How about a picture of beer cans and/or chicken bones?
/.
That is precisely why the founders of the American Republic specifically and emphatically rejected the notion of "democracy". They had a clear-headed understanding of the level of "judgment" to be expected from the masses on any emotionally-charged issue.
/.
And yet here we have hordes of slashdot posters positivly rejoicing that EVERY @home user is going to be censored.
Sigh. One more time, slowly.
It is not censorship to prohibit the operation of sound trucks in residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night.
It is not censorship to stop someone from spray-painting a message on your front door.
It is not censorship to keep your e-mail account secured so that script kiddies can't use it to announce "YOU ALL SUCK".
It is not censorship to reject messages from a spamhaus.
What part of this progression eludes you?
/.
You've been taken in by spammer FUD and BS. Net sites are the private property of their respective owner, free to reject traffic according to their own rules (though they may be liable if they selectively enforce the rules in a prejudicial manner).
Especially go after the smaller sites. They'll BUCKLE under the legal pressure as their bosses realize that they cannot afford a long expen$$$ive lawsuit.
@Home presumably hires reputable and competent lawyers, who do not wish to besmirch their recordss with frivolous-lawsuit sanctions. Their spammer customers are welcome to file such lawsuits, if any of them can find an attorney willing to accept chick en bones as a form of currency.
/.
They've capped my tax/fee/fine liability at a level lower than the $50 credit-card liability cap? Great!!
Or a company that aggregates legally available information that, when brought together, violates privacy
You mean like the Census Long Form? (Oops, that's not a company. Never mind....)
Generally, unless you're kevin mitnick, you have more to fear from criminals and unethical people than from the government.
One cannot draw a firm distinction between groups which overlap so extensively.
/.
First, it's incoherent: how can "physical or mental prowess" not be an example of "objective, individual merit"?
Second, it relies upon undefined terms: if you think "harassment" is a well-defined concept then you haven't been paying attention to the state of sexual-harassment law.
Third, it is an affront to freedom of association: by your definition, a desire to separate oneself from bores and louts (which I certainly regard as inferior, but which cannot be defined in objective terms) is "hate speech".
Fourth, exactly how does one engage in "harassment" against "places", "things", or "concepts"?
/.
/.
That's why he's Big Media's darling. "Campaign Finance Reform" == "Big Media gets effective monopoly on political discussion".
/.
If you don't want all personal liberties to be ultimately destroyed by divide-and-conquer attack, you should not give aid and comfort to the dividers and conquerors.
/.
If I buy a bottle of powder that says it will kill my cat's fleas, and it does -- and makes her hair fall out -- I'd sue the crooks who sold it. I'd win, too, provided that I presented convincing evidence that 1)the powder was indeed the cause of the feline defoliation and 2)that this side effect had not been disclosed.
Why don't the same laws apply if you buy a box that says it contains software that will block pornsites, and it does -- and blocks politically-incorrect sites?
/.
There is a classic Sidney Harris cartoon showing a blackboard with one set of equations on the left, a different set on the right, and in between is written: "THEN, A MIRACLE HAPPENS".
Sorry, but you'll have to show your work, with proof that the definition is immune to politically-based targeting by government.
Of course, this does nothing for the other big problem in the Net (hate speech) but a similar plan could be used.
The "hate speech" label is routinely used as a political club. No, I'm afraid that your plan simply can't work (at least, not for your stated goals; it would work just fine as a tool for the government to ghettoize the opposition).
/.
Belief in the Bible != Being religious. Your comments here are grossly disrespectful to billions of people.
you see clearly stated in numerous places throuought the Bible that sexual promiscuity is against the will of the Almighty
Even if we set aside the previous point and concentrate on the Bible, we find it to be rather inconsistent on this issue; I can't seem to find the passage which condemns Solomon for having seven hundred wives and three hundred porcupines.
My specific religion states that sexual promiscuity is a crime above that even of murder.
I'll refrain from stating an opinion on this relative valuation, and simply note that it would be lunacy to base civil law on a standard that would release a murderer onto the streets to free a prison cell for an adulterer.
Your biggest fears may be the possibility of government officials poking their nose where it doesn't belong.
Damn straight. If you think that there is something to be feared more, then show me the evidence that your allegedly more fearsome force has racked up a higher death toll over the past century than out-of-control governments. (Hint: You'll need to reach nine-digit territory.)
you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away your rights
Precisely. To permit rights to be taken away is to acquiesce to the triumph of evil -- which many religious people consider to be, quite literally, grounds for damnation.
The vast majority of sex offenders, murderers, etc are known to have frequented pornagraphy.
Has education really degenerated to the point that people don't recognize the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy?
/.
Oh, so that's what my high school English teacher meant by "stream of consciousness"....
/.
Free speech requires only that everyone is free to speak; it does not require anyone else to listen. The fact that the flat-earth side of the geophysical debate goes unheard simply means that they've lost the argument, not that their free speech rights have somehow been infringed.
/.
"Society" is incapable of figuring out anything or forming an opinion, insamuch as reason in an attribute of individual sapient beings.
Yes, it makes for a convenient shorthand (for "enough people agree with me to shout down the people who agree with you"), but when shorthand expressions facilitate logical fallacies they need to be expanded out for analysis.
It should be illegal to distribute pictures of sexual activities that are illegal. Simple.
The equation of the image with the reality is called "voo-doo" and scorned as superstition when practiced by impoverished and uneducated (by force of circumstances) Haitians. I see no reason why it should be accorded any more respect when practiced by wealthy and uneducated (by choice) Americans.
The first amendment protects speech, not porn. The writers wanted to protect the right of the citizens to speak against the government. Simple. They very easily could have said "freedom of expression," but they did not.
Now, now, now; when you try to have it both ways it's traditional to at least pretend to respect the intelligence of your readers by inserting at least three paragraphs of padding between the mutually exclusive statements.
Either one may infer an intent not explicitly stated, or one may not. Your option (One may infer an intent I like, but not one I dislike) is not on the menu.
/.
Quote the text of the relevant Constitutional amendment (the one and only mechanism by whcih the Constitution may "evolve"), or admit that you're blowing smoke.
/.
You know, when people do this with physical goods rather than words, it's called "bait and switch", and it's (quite legitimately) illegal.
/.
Newspeak-to-English Translation: "Oops; we've been spotted. Better lie low until the heat's off."
/.